Domain driven design and WCF services architecture
I am trying to figure out how to architecture my project in the DDD paradigm (a complete beginner in DDD) and stumbled upon a problem about the implementation of the web services… These are some options that I see:
calling an abstract method in abstract class
Suppose i have an abstract base class Parent which defines an abstract Method A(some parameter) taking a parameter, also it defines an instance Method B which calls method A(parameter) inside its body and passing some parameter.Then we have an concrete child class B which extends the base class and provide its own implementation of Method A using the parameter passes. I have seen many implementation of this practice in frameworks. I want to know how it works and does it provide any benefits.
calling an abstract method in abstract class
Suppose i have an abstract base class Parent which defines an abstract Method A(some parameter) taking a parameter, also it defines an instance Method B which calls method A(parameter) inside its body and passing some parameter.Then we have an concrete child class B which extends the base class and provide its own implementation of Method A using the parameter passes. I have seen many implementation of this practice in frameworks. I want to know how it works and does it provide any benefits.
calling an abstract method in abstract class
Suppose i have an abstract base class Parent which defines an abstract Method A(some parameter) taking a parameter, also it defines an instance Method B which calls method A(parameter) inside its body and passing some parameter.Then we have an concrete child class B which extends the base class and provide its own implementation of Method A using the parameter passes. I have seen many implementation of this practice in frameworks. I want to know how it works and does it provide any benefits.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.
Ensure that each class has only one responsibility, why?
According to Microsoft documentation, the Wikipedia SOLID principe article, or most IT architects we must ensure that each class has only one responsibility. I would like to know why, because if everybody seems to agree with this rule nobody seems to agree about the reasons of this rule.